Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote: > What do you figure it will take to solve NLP, in terms of computing > power, training data, and coding effort? Or are there some fundamental > research questions you have to answer first? >
I have no idea. I believe that using controllable experimental platforms that can demonstrate advances is the best way to continue advancing even if the advances are incremental. However, there are times when you have to jump to try a different theoretical model. I thought you were going to ask me something about P=NP when I first started reading your comment. Jim Bromer On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >> My approach is to make it no more complicated then necessary. > > That's always a good approach to solving any problem. > > What do you figure it will take to solve NLP, in terms of computing > power, training data, and coding effort? Or are there some fundamental > research questions you have to answer first? > > -- > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
